The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of 成人快手 and committees will automatically update to show only the 成人快手 and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of 成人快手 and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of 成人快手 and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 349 contributions
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
A number of witnesses have raised the issue of how the Parliament measures the outcomes that are produced by the supported bodies. The committee has received some evidence, albeit in private session, that suggests that there are serious challenges in some areas鈥攑ossibly more for advocacy-based supported bodies. Do you have any views on how that could be improved?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
I want to focus slightly more on that, to get your opinion on it.
If a commissioner that is funded by the corporate body is potentially not fulfilling its remit as set out in its enabling legislation, and if Parliament is perhaps not doing its job effectively with regard to scrutiny, would that be a concern? Would you seek to suggest that the Parliament step up in some way?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
I come to my final question. There are other bodies that are funded directly by the Scottish Government and their oversight, scrutiny and governance arrangements are, in some cases, quite different from those that apply to bodies that the corporate body would fund. I do not know how far you are aware of those arrangements. Do you think that anything could be learned from the way in which the Government carries out scrutiny of the other bodies that it funds?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
The committee has taken evidence that suggests that office-holders should be scrutinised by a parliamentary committee at least once a year. Do you have any views on that, and do you think that the timing is appropriate?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
Yes鈥攖hat is what I was going to add. In addition to what Douglas Ross said, we could and should be doing post-legislative scrutiny better as a Parliament.
The other thing that I would add is about something that I was not particularly aware of. I have just started sitting on the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, which is an extra short-life committee, and, during our discussions, it has come out that members of the Scottish Parliament and its committees are responsible for monitoring the performance of the bodies that are supported and funded by the parliamentary corporate body. 成人快手 and committees are possibly not aware of that, and they are certainly not doing that as they should be.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
No鈥擨 think that we can get more capacity by making committees smaller.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
That is just my opinion鈥攜ou can take it or leave it.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
It would be possible if we had fewer members on each committee鈥攖hat is my point. If we cut the numbers down and did not have such big committees, potentially, there would be an opportunity for members not to have to sit on so many committees. I think that we would all agree that committee participation is very important, and I do not think that members are able to give it the commitment or level of attention that they should if they sit on three committees, or two very big ones. That is my experience.
I also think that we should consider having elected conveners.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
There is certainly a place for setting out to new members, when they come in, what function and remit a committee has in Parliament, just to ensure that everyone is clear about what they are here to do.
It is a while鈥攁bout nine years ago now鈥攕ince I first arrived, but I, too, remember the training on questioning that we got in 2016, which I thought was useful. I think that that was when the Parliament first started to do an induction programme. I believe that it might have been updated since then, for 2021, but I do not know how successful that was.
With regard to CPD, there may be an opportunity for that. When members first come in, it may be worth while refreshing certain skills. It appears to me that some members did not get the memo on that questioning training, which was about being succinct and getting to the point, whereas鈥攁s we all know鈥攁 lot of waffling goes on.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Ash Regan
I do not think that we would get anyone else at this table to agree to ditch proportionality, and we probably should not. I am not suggesting that we do so, but I feel strongly that committees need to be made smaller. We all agree that there is a capacity issue when it comes to legislation, scrutiny and holding the Government and public bodies to account, which we need to think about carefully.
We could perhaps have committees in different categories. The Lib Dems were probably invited to sit on the committee that I am currently on but perhaps did not have the capacity to do so. The committee has probably ended up as it has because the committee does not have legislation to vote on, so the larger parties were probably quite relaxed about it not having the same proportionality.
Perhaps that offers an opportunity. In committees that might work in a different way, you could relax proportionality; in others, such as education, justice and so on, the major parties will understandably want to be represented.